Archive ai tracking prompt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description attempts context ('Preserve immutable revisions, explicit budget consent, and stable retry keys') but this phrasing is opaque about what archiving actually does to the prompt, its revisions, or associated runs — no reversibility, scope-of-effect, or consequence is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Only three short sentences, so it is not bloated, but the opening is a generic filler line and the actual action is never front-loaded. The 'preserve/consent/retry keys' clause reads as boilerplate rather than earned content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive archive operation with no output schema and no annotations beyond the destructive hint, the description should explain what archiving entails (soft delete vs. hard, effect on revisions/runs, reversibility). Instead it is vague and does not tell the agent what to expect after calling it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both params (project_id, prompt_id) are self-documented with patterns and scope notes. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The name and title say 'archive_ai_tracking_prompt', but the description opens with the generic 'Manage project-scoped AI tracking' without ever stating that the tool archives a prompt. It restates a broad domain rather than the specific verb+resource, so it adds nothing over the title and is arguably less precise than the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named — even though obvious siblings exist (archive_ai_tracking_topic, archive_ai_tracking_schedule). The only directional hint is the negative 'This does not start an automatic paid baseline', which is narrow and does not route the agent between archiving tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.